GG Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I will but I don't need your permission Of course you don't. But then don't complain of being called a perpetual idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Of course you don't. But then don't complain of being called a perpetual idiot. i'll continue to complain about insults used as argument. it's an ignorant and juvenile tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 due to your insistence on clouding the actual issue with unrelated events and groups, lets look at a very different take on how those groups/events might contrast: Absolutely the funniest thing that I will read today..................thanks. The last three pages are filled with your back and forth parsing of what "stand down" actually means (including definition ) and trading insults...............and claiming "victory and I'm clouding the issue by posting an article about candidate reactions to the illegal takeover.....................hilarious Now don't get me wrong........................I know that's what a political message board is for, the way most of you view it. but excuse me if I interrupt your tantrums with an occasional opinion piece.. "clouding the issue"...............I love that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Absolutely the funniest thing that I will read today..................thanks. The last three pages are filled with your back and forth parsing of what "stand down" actually means (including definition ) and trading insults...............and claiming "victory and I'm clouding the issue by posting an article about candidate reactions to the illegal takeover.....................hilarious Now don't get me wrong........................I know that's what a political message board is for, the way most of you view it. but excuse me if I interrupt your tantrums with an occasional opinion piece.. "clouding the issue"...............I love that. . No, you keep trying to say, "look at the evil media instead," "Look at evil liberals instead." Ya, you are trying to cloud the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Absolutely the funniest thing that I will read today..................thanks. The last three pages are filled with your back and forth parsing of what "stand down" actually means (including definition ) and trading insults...............and claiming "victory and I'm clouding the issue by posting an article about candidate reactions to the illegal takeover.....................hilarious Now don't get me wrong........................I know that's what a political message board is for, the way most of you view it. but excuse me if I interrupt your tantrums with an occasional opinion piece.. "clouding the issue"...............I love that. . cruz' statement on the issue is directly applicable and relevant to the thread. what he said, what the phrase means and the context in which he said it are all very important especially since he is on the side that has historically failed to condemn groups like this. this adds clarity not opacity althpough I agree that the water is clearly tinted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I was thinking about this part of the argument this am. by this reasoning, if an army had another army surrounded and outgunned and demanded that they stand down, they wouldn't literally be demanding stand down since it doesn't follow the chain of command. one can envision many other law enforcement or military examples that also don't involve it. this is one of the weakest arguments I've seen from you in some time and that is really saying something. Except that in your example, said army would be using "stand down" as a METAPHOR for "surrender." All you've managed to prove is that you don't understand "metaphor" or "literal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Except that in your example, said army would be using "stand down" as a METAPHOR for "surrender." All you've managed to prove is that you don't understand "metaphor" or "literal." no, you don't understand. standing down in thatr situation meets the dictionary definition of the term thus it's literal. your argu,ment gets more pathetic by the minute. now you are arguing over the meaning of literal. it's truly pitiful. and I mean that literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Rand Paul, White House, Want Oregon Standoff Resolved Cautiously. Why Don’t More Liberals Agree? Relentlessly demonizing misunderstood opponents is a bad idea. Yeah, but it’s pretty much their only idea. What the left gets wrong about the Oregon standoff http://theatln.tc/1OKbTA5 CAIR spokesman: Let’s call the Oregon protesters what they are — terrorists http://time.com/4166975/oregon-protesters-terrorists/ … (but Hamas isn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 no, you don't understand. standing down in thatr situation meets the dictionary definition of the term thus it's literal. your argu,ment gets more pathetic by the minute. now you are arguing over the meaning of literal. it's truly pitiful. and I mean that literally. I'm not arguing over the definition of "literal." I'm arguing that you don't know that definition, since you're applying is selectively, and you can't pick and choose what is and is not literal. But keep trying to insist that Cruz is literally ordering an organized military force to cease operations and disarm itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I'm not arguing over the definition of "literal." I'm arguing that you don't know that definition, since you're applying is selectively, and you can't pick and choose what is and is not literal. But keep trying to insist that Cruz is literally ordering an organized military force to cease operations and disarm itself. the dictionary definition that I posted yesterday hasn't changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 the dictionary definition that I posted yesterday hasn't changed. But your definition is literally meaningless unless you are arguing everyone literally uses the exact definition of every word in their day to day lives - which literally never happens. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 But your definition is literally meaningless unless you are arguing everyone literally uses the exact definition of every word in their day to day lives - which literally never happens. Try again. His definition is literally meaningless because his literal application of it is literally not literal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 His definition is literally meaningless because his literal application of it is literally not literal. 100%. But it doesn't fit his invented argument so who needs details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 100%. But it doesn't fit his invented argument so who needs details? Those pesky details. They're so obfuscating. You know what's next? He accuses me of reducing this to a semantic argument. And conveniently ignore the fact that his whole invented argument of Cruz - " "stand down" implies imminent threat by those being asked to do so, no?" - is a semantic argument to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Those pesky details. They're so obfuscating. You know what's next? He accuses me of reducing this to a semantic argument. And conveniently ignore the fact that his whole invented argument of Cruz - " "stand down" implies imminent threat by those being asked to do so, no?" - is a semantic argument to begin with. Makes sense, he did the same thing in the other thread on the monuments. He made an argument: slavery is so evil, so bad, that anyone who supports slavery of any kind is more than likely to be morally inferior... ...but his own support of modern slavery isn't relevant to the discussion because he used the words "more likely". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Makes sense, he did the same thing in the other thread on the monuments. He made an argument: slavery is so evil, so bad, that anyone who supports slavery of any kind is more than likely to be morally inferior... ...but his own support of modern slavery isn't relevant to the discussion because he used the words "more likely". Which then always proceeds to "anyone who disagrees with me is morally inferior..." He's a relative moral absolutist, which fits well with his metaphorical literalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Which then always proceeds to "anyone who disagrees with me is morally inferior..." He's a relative moral absolutist, which fits well with his metaphorical literalism. here's a word for your debate skills: pathetic. when all else fails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) here's a word for your debate skills: pathetic. when all else fails... No one else seems to think so. I guess the problem is...everyone else then, isn't it? Hey, did you hear Cruz today threaten to kill Obama with a pen? Edited January 5, 2016 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 But your definition is literally meaningless unless you are arguing everyone literally uses the exact definition of every word in their day to day lives - which literally never happens. Literally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) No one else seems to think so. I guess the problem is...everyone else then, isn't it? Hey, did you hear Cruz today threaten to kill Obama with a pen? not everyone else. just the cons in the chorus here. Edited January 5, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts